Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmit Singh @ Manraj ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5724 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmit Singh @ Manraj ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ananda Sen, Ambuj Nath

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 342 of 2024
       Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmit Singh @ Manraj Gill, aged about 25 years, son of
       Sardar Natha Singh, resident of Jhill, Sarhand Road, PO. & P.S.- Tripuri
       Town, District- Patiyala (Punjab).
                                                         .... Appellant
                                         Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                            .... Respondent
                                  ------
              CORAM :         SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI AMBUJ NATH, J.

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.

-----

I.A. No. 9160 of 2025

7/ 11.09.2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. Prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected on 02.07.2024 on merit. Now the appellant again prays for suspension of sentence and thereafter release him on bail, during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 46 of 2022 for the offence under Section (s) 366-A/376(2)(n) and of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 366- A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 3 months and rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 9 months.

4. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

5. Admittedly, the age of the victim is less than 16 years at the time of occurrence. Hence, we are not dealing with the statement of the victim in details, but the statements of the victim, prima facie, gives impression that

there was an intention of the appellant since very inception and giving false information and giving a wrong impression, the girl was forced to go with him from Bokaro to Patiala and thereafter there is an allegation of forceful sexual intercourse.

6. We find no fresh ground to entertain this application, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Thus, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) R.Kr./Rahul